This got me thinking about why people vote the way they do, and whether some reasons are better than others. The first thing to point out is that there is nothing logical about voting. To vote or not to vote would seem to be more of a moral question, and many of us feel that it is a responsibility we must take on. And yet, there's less consensus on the criteria for how we should cast our ballot.

Anyway, there are many potentially-reasonable ways to decide who you should vote for. Here are several examples...

I could vote for the local representative...

...of the party that I feel would do the best job if they form the government

...of the party that I feel would do the best job if they form the government, but limited to those parties likely to the form the government

...of the party that I feel has the best policy platform

...of the party that I feel has presented a policy platform that best points the direction we should be moving (in order to send a message)

...of the party that I feel has presented a policy that best addresses a very important single issue / set of issues (in order to send a message)

...of the party that I feel is led by the best* potential Prime Minister

...who I think is the best* among the candidates in my riding

...who is most likely to beat the local representative of the party I want to prevent from forming the government

(* - I can think of many ways of defining "best" in this context, but the list is long enough already. Note that the numbers in the list are for reference only.)

It would be hard for me to argue that any of these approaches are "hooey", but perhaps Norm and others feel we should limit ourselves to #2.